Saturday, September 1, 2012

Anyone who could endure watching the now-completed Republican National Convention must now realize that these conventions (yes, I'm including the soon-to-begin Democratic National Convention) are nothing more than exercises in propaganda. Whatever vestiges might have remained in terms of political drama at such conventions in the past have now been eradicated by the rise in significance of the primaries. By the time of the conventions, the nomination of the party's candidate for the Presidency has been sewn up, and this is now a huge, pointless "celebration" to reward the political party faithful and to reinforce whatever ideas the political party wishes to emphasize down the home stretch of a campaign that by now has been going on for many long months.

For those who support that political party above all else, this is a time to reinforce their reasons for supporting that party. Presumably, no matter what stand a political party takes on some issue, that stand will upset some members of that party. But anyone upset about one issue or another will be asked to put their "petty issues" aside and vote for that party with which they're affiliated. "You mightget a candidate next time who will be more of your liking, but this time, we have to go forward with the one selected during the primaries." If someone finds themselves upset about supporting their party's candidate, they can vote for the other party's candidate, of course. But most won't. Many will vote a straight party ticket - party loyalists, if you will. "My party, right or wrong!"

From where I sit, such a position is clearly that of someone who chooses not to think for her/himself. In the 45+ years I've been eligible to vote in national elections, I can't think of a single time when I was in complete agreement with every element of either party's platform. [By the way, the platforms presented by the parties often clash with what the politicians actually do after they're elected!] So is the national convention a time when I look forward to being convinced that the Republican or Democrat candidate is the one for whom I should cast my vote? Am I swept away with emotional enthusiasm as the inspirational music plays and the red, white, and blue balloons fall about the party's nominee? Are all my doubts and concerns erased when the party's nominee is introduced as "the next President of the United States!" (which will only be true for one of them, of course) to the wild cheers of the party faithful? Nope. Not at all.

The whole process is a charade, a propaganda trick, an expensive stage drama managed by the party's national committee. I find it insulting that anyone would use such a transparent process to capture my vote for the hack they've nominated. The national conventions are not at all about using reason and empirical evidence to choose among competing ideas. They don't allow any discussion of diverse viewpoints about the various issues the parties choose to emphasize, while simultaneously doing their best to ignore other issues that might prove troublesome to that party's chances for election victory. The goals include castigation of the opposing party's candidate - right up to the point of demonizing him/her. They also include discrediting the opposing party as a whole - right up to the point of demonizing that party - thereby demonizing the people who vote for that party. To say this is divisive would be a huge understatement. Using various forms of falsehoods is entirely acceptable in propaganda, so anything goes, including outright lies, distortions, labeling, and pure fabrications. This process occurs on both Democrat and Republican sides, although it's pretty
evident that the Republican party mastered these tactics much sooner and they continue to employ them more effectively than do the Democrats.

It's well-known that logic and evidence (i.e., rational arguments) are completely ineffective in changing anyone's stance on some issue if their stance is emotional (i.e., irrational) to the point of "My party, right or wrong!" Rational debate is pointless when dealing with an irrational viewpoint - and the national conventions clearly are aimed at the emotions, not the rational mind. Unfortunately, my brain struggles with trying to figure out what irrational argument I might find acceptable to change someone's irrational views. I can't find any acceptable ones.

All's fair in the propaganda wars, so I decline to waste my time even listening to the hogwash spewed out at the national nominating conventions. I prefer critical thinking and arriving at firm conclusions only after a thorough consideration of all the evidence I can find. Yes, I prefer one party to the other - I believe you can guess which - but I detest both parties and refuse to support anyone who would stoop to such tactics to win an election.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Just today, Rush Limbaugh's blog has sunk to a new low! In this blog, he insinuates (without saying it in so many words, of course) that the forecasts of the tropical storm, Isaac, were manipulated by the National Hurricane Center (NHC, a part of the National Weather Service - NWS) to cause problems for the Republican nominating convention about to take place in Tampa, FL. He keeps insisting that he's not claiming it was a conspiracy - so often does he make this denial, it begins to appear that he "doth protest too much!" Nudge-nudge. Wink-wink.

What is fascinating about this is that on the whole, the NWS is a predominantly conservative bunch of folks. The very notion that they would deliberately mislead the public in order to cause problems to the Republicans is so preposterous that it doesn't deserve any serious attention! Except ... if no one with any real credibility as a hurricane forecaster steps up and challenges these ludicrous implications, the default assumption is that the NHC meteorologists can't challenge them!

What follows is entirely my personal opinion ...

Rush Limbaugh is an ignorant political hack. He knows nothing about meteorology, about science, about critical thinking. The only thing he does, besides oxycontin and hydrocodone, is write inflammatory bullshit that has little or no substance to it. He has delusions of being a pundit, but he's built his empire by playing up to the conservative masses, spouting ideas they want to hear in various public media. He feeds the conservative paranoia, maintaining their fear of external threats so they don't dwell on how they are voting against their own self-interests. In the process, he's become wealthy and even gotten awards (!!). But he keeps making really stupid statements - after doing so recently, he was forced out of his TV show after one gaffe in early 2012 that caused all his advertisers to flee, which in turn resulted in his firing.

Of course, his rabid, slack-jawed supporters hang on his every word and excuse every bit of nonsense and vituperative junk he utters. In fact, his most rabid supporters are the very folks toward whom Rush seeks to aim his invective and innuendos. This is the lowest common denominator amongst the conservative crowd, who see communist conspiracies everywhere, as well as cheer Rush when he makes unprovoked attacks on black Americans, gays, atheists, and women.

This time, Rush has insulted an organization of folks who daily do their best to provide us with useful weather information. He's implied they've conspired with our President to cause harm to the Republican cause. If there had been even a hint of that whispered in the halls of the NWS, there would have been a storm, all right: a storm of angry protest from NWS employees at the very idea of such a conspiracy. It's one thing for Rush to aim his popguns at politicians - no one really likes politicians anymore. But it's quite a different thing for Rush to impugn the integrity of the staff of the NHC. No one knows better than the NWS forecasters that it's a major challenge to get the forecasts as accurate as possible. Rush wants to sweep all that integrity, all that science, all that hard work into the trash, because he sees a conspiracy against the conservatives!

It makes me wonder what Rush's supporters within the NWS think about him, now - are they making excuses for his attack on their integrity? Or are they rethinking that support in light of this insult aimed at them?

Rush doesn't know anything about how computer model forecasts can shift. Can he honestly say he's been tracking those computer model forecasts since 1997? Does he even have a clue about the volatility of computer model forecasts? Of course not! Rush Limbaugh is an overinflated, narcissistic, pathetic poltroon! Anyone who would listen to this miserable pretender to punditry deserves precisely what they get ... a pile of crap.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

I've been struggling with the issue of abortion for a long time. I don't believe it to be the simple, black-and-white issue that many seem to believe it is. For a long time, I've been bothered by the idea of snuffing out a living being for the sake of the 'convenience' of the mother. I understand that part - I really do! I don't care for the idea of abortion as a relatively simple escape hatch for being careless about contraception. In this day and age, there are many simple and effective ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and responsible men and women should be allowed to use those effective means to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

But - at the same time - I understand that careless people are out there, and some of the careless women get pregnant and are unwilling or unable to accept the responsibility for the potential child in their womb. They'll seek abortions by whatever means, safe or unsafe. And of course, thousands of women die every year as a result of unsafe abortions. Does being 'pro-life' exclude any concern for the lives of those women? Is their unborn potential child more important? How does that arithmetic work to be a life-positive outcome? Isn't the evident lack of concern for these women really a thinly-veiled moral judgment of their participation in sex, perhaps outside of marriage?

With time, I'm finally coming to see the real source of all the 'pro-life' groups' power and pervasiveness: religion. You don't have to be religious to be against abortion, but I'm pretty confident that a substantial majority of the folks opposed to the right of women to control their own reproductive system are religious and that's driving their support of the anti-abortion movement.

What evidence is there to support this notion? The arguments being offered by the anti-abortion movement have the strong stench of black-and-white religious morality. They also include scientifically-absurd notions like the recent comments by Rep. Todd Akins (which are not exclusively his!) about "legitimate rape" never resulting in pregnancy - such nonsensical and manifestly untrue beliefs are the hallmarks of a religious movement. Several different tactics involving the re-branding of rape have been used to try to limit the opportunities for raped women to abort pregnancies resulting from rape. In fact, there are efforts underway to outlaw all abortions, including those pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, those resulting from rape, and those resulting from incest. The effort to make in vitro fertilization and other fertility enhancements virtually impossible under proposed new laws is based on the same irrational arguments made on behalf of anti-abortion laws: the protection of fertilized eggs at all costs! The blocking of federal support for stem cell research that could save many lives and heal many ailments has been similarly based on anti-abortion-related arguments.

Extremist christians have embarked on a crusade in the USA to identify 'personhood' as beginning at the moment of conception. Any rational person must see that a fertilized egg only becomes a person when it has the capacity to survive outside of its mother's body. Prior to that, the fertilized egg is only a potential person, and many don't survive owing to failures to implant in the uterus, spontaneous abortions, etc. Is the mother a murderer (or guilty of involuntary manslaughter) because she has a miscarriage? This crusade to transform fertilized eggs into sacrosanct living persons is obviously a religion-motivated campaign. They shrewdly call themselves 'pro-life' but they seem not to give a damn about that same fertilized egg once it's born! Many of them oppose welfare for single parents or poor families struggling to support those children, once they're born. Many of them oppose support for education of those same fertilized eggs - education that might convert children from disadvantaged single parents into productive members of society. Many favor the death penalty when those same fertilized eggs reach adulthood and lash out in violent acts. Heaven forbid that fertilized egg turns into an LGBT person, at which point some 'pro-lifers' feel that they deserve to die!

They're not so pro-life as they want to claim, and they're obviously motivated by the sort of religious misogyny that characterizes islamic fundamentalists like the Taliban. Women should stay at home and bear children, not be paid equally for their work, not be promoted to the highest professional levels, not be encouraged to pursue math and science. If they're raped, it's because they were asking for it! Some would even seek to have the right to vote taken from women! These extremists want to roll back the clock and do away with all the progress in women's rights over the past 200 years.

From where I now sit, the anti-abortion movement is basically an effort to legislate religious morality - an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into our secular government. At the same time as this anti-abortion crusade is underway, the religious extremists behind this movement also want to ban virtually all forms of contraception! The irrationality of that can only be embraced by people already accustomed to accommodation of contractions: religious extremists!

A collection of short comments, rants, complaints, tributes, or whatever. This won't replace my existing Web essays.
IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON ANY ENTRY, YOU MUST INCLUDE YOUR REAL FIRST AND LAST NAME - NO ANONYMOUS OR FIRST-NAME ONLY COMMENTS, OR THOSE USING A PSEUDONYM WILL BE POSTED!

About Me

I'm an opinionated person whose career has been focused mostly on severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. I don't like to be pigeonholed by category and believe that my collective views on various subjects can't be described in simple terms. You might find some or most of what I have to say about things to be aggravating, or even infuriating. I have no problem with that - so long as we stay away from ad hominem attacks, we can use this blog to argue. I refuse to continue arguments that devolve into personal insults - that will end my participation. My mind can be changed about many things, but I won't do so just to please you and I hope you'll not do so to please me. I learn from disagreements and don't respond well to sycophants attempting to curry my favor with flattery.